Scottish Executive

Agriculture

David Mundell (South of Scotland) (Con): To ask the Scottish Executive, further to the answer to question S1O-6679 by Ross Finnie on 20 March 2003, what progress has been made in developing a national disposal scheme for fallen stock.

Ross Finnie: Following further negotiations with industry organisations, the other devolved administrations and DEFRA a revised financial framework has been agreed and an announcement was made on 24 July that a UK-wide national scheme would be set-up. This will be administered by a company limited by guarantee which will have industry and official representation on the board. The projected date for starting the scheme is January 2004 and officials and industry representatives will focus on finalising operational rules and other details in the run up to that date.

  Establishing a UK service has been a main objective for the Executive for many months and I very much hope that producers will take full advantage of the central funding being directed to address the problem of disposal of fallen stock and subscribe to this scheme.

Agriculture

Mr Rob Gibson (Highlands and Islands) (SNP): To ask the Scottish Executive what payments have been made under the Less Favoured Area Support Scheme in 2003-04, broken down by local authority area

Ross Finnie: The following table shows the total amount of expenditure under the Less Favoured Area Support Scheme 2003, as at 30 June 2003. The total is broken down by the council area of the main farm code of the claimant although a producer may hold land in more than one council area. Payments made to individual producers are ascribed to a council area, therefore, will not have resulted solely from land in that area.

  


Council

Total 
  Paid


 Aberdeenshire Council
 £4,377,141.58


 Angus Council
 £1,095,186.41


 Argyll and Bute Council
 £5,692,082.41


 City of Aberdeen Council
 £50,587.49


 City of Edinburgh Council
 £128,150.77


 City of Glasgow Council
 £7,952.98


 Clackmannan Council
 £105,495.67


 Comhairle nan Eilean Siar
 £1,496,981.78


 Dumbarton and Clydebank Council
 £167,243.92


 Dumfries and Galloway Council
 £9,950,091.02


 East Ayrshire Council
 £1,267,066.91


 East Dunbartonshire Council
 £172,525.05


 East Lothian Council
 £459,157.44


 East Renfrewshire Council
 £261,819.54


 Falkirk Council
 £221,781.43


 Fife Council
 £505,248.16


 Highland Council
 £9,914,540.81


 Inverclyde Council
 £196,873.08


 Midlothian Council
 £398,291.58


 Moray Council
 £2,185,198.60


 North Ayrshire Council
 £968,054.12


 North Lanarkshire Council
 £347,133.21


 Orkney Islands Council
 £3,257,096.46


 Perth and Kinross Council
 £3,262,549.07


 Renfrewshire Council
 £199,027.67


 Shetland Islands Council
 £1,964,757.49


 South Ayrshire Council
 £1,614,860.01


 South Lanarkshire Council
 £2,553,499.22


 Stirling Council
 £1,571,350.63


 Borders Council
 £6,348,052.61


 West Lothian Council
 £374,833.33


 Total Paid
 £61,114,630.45

Agriculture

Mr Rob Gibson (Highlands and Islands) (SNP): To ask the Scottish Executive whether it will include a requirement for the level of each payment under the Less Favoured Areas Support Scheme to be made public in the conditions of payment for the scheme in 2004-05.

Ross Finnie: The Executive does not intend to include a condition along the lines indicated by the member to achieve the publication of individual payment details. Notwithstanding such a condition, the Executive is required by the Integrated Administration and Control System (IACS) regime for wider subsidy payments, which supports Less Favoured Area Subsidy Scheme (LFASS) payment administration, to take the measures necessary to protect the data collected (Articles 9 and 9a of Council Regulation (EEC) 3508/92). In addition, the Data Protection Act 1998 requires SEERAD to process personal data, in this case payment details, fairly and lawfully, only for specified and lawful purposes and not in any way that is incompatible with those purposes.

Enterprise

Margaret Jamieson (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab): To ask the Scottish Executive what action it is taking to increase business start-ups in areas where the rate of business start-ups is below the Scottish average.

Mr Jim Wallace: Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise provide business support for new and existing businesses in Scotland. Both announced performance figures for start-ups assisted during the last financial year above the targets originally set. At a local level, specific actions to improve start-up rates are an operational matter for the enterprise networks.

  As outlined in the Partnership Agreement, steps are in hand to further improve support measures through the introduction of a new business start up fund.

Environment

Alex Johnstone (North East Scotland) (Con): To ask the Scottish Executive what studies it has conducted into the impact energy to waste schemes might have on the environment and on public health.

Ross Finnie: The Scottish Executive is represented on a working group which is overseeing a UK-wide study of the environmental and health impacts of waste management, including incineration. The draft report, by a consortium led by Enviros Consulting Ltd, was recently passed to the Royal Society of Chemistry for peer review.

  This research builds on the work of the UK Government's Small Area Health Statistics Unit whose report Cancer incidence near municipal solid waste incinerators in Great Britain appeared in the British Journal of Cancer, Volume 73, pp702-710.

  The environmental and health impacts of energy from waste schemes are considered on a case by case basis by the Scottish Environmental Protection Agency when it issues or reviews permits for facilities. The Pollution Prevention and Control (Scotland) Regulations 2000 require that applications for permits shall contain information about any foreseeable significant effects of emissions on the environment and on human health.

Health

Shona Robison (Dundee East) (SNP): To ask the Scottish Executive what research is being undertaken to establish whether women are at risk from synthetic progestins; what guidance is being issued by the Chief Medical Officer to medical practitioners about using products containing such progestins, and what public information is being made available in order to enable members of the public to make informed choices about pharmaceutical products containing synthetic progestins.

Malcolm Chisholm: The safety of medicines is reserved and is the responsibility of the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA). The MHRA has advised that research into the risks associated with synthetic progestins is conducted in the UK and worldwide on a continuous basis by a variety of research bodies, including pharmaceutical companies, hospitals, universities and other independent researchers.

  The National Research Register (NRR), a UK wide database of all publicly funded research of relevance to the NHS, records that there are currently seven projects on-going in the UK on the effects of synthetic progestins.

  Details of these projects are available from the NRR, a copy of which is in the Parliament's Reference Centre (Bib. number 17404).

  In the UK, a study (The Million Women Study) involving around one million UK women aged 50 and over is on-going and aims to answer many outstanding questions about the factors affecting womens' health in this age group. In particular, the study is looking at how hormone replacement therapy (HRT) affects a woman's health. This study was set up in 1996 by Cancer Research UK, the National Health Service Breast Screening Programme and the Medical Research Council. Over one in four women in the UK in the target age group are now participating in the study which means that the Million Women Study is the largest study of its kind in the world.

  In 2001, a European-wide review of all the available evidence regarding HRT use was initiated in order to produce consistent information for health professionals and women throughout Europe. The UK has had significant involvement in these discussions and has provided advice from the Committee on Safety of Medicines (CSM) Expert Working Group (EWG) on HRT.

  In July 2002, the combined (oestrogen and progestogen) HRT arm of the Women's Health Initiative (WHI) trial, a study that was set up to investigate the long-term effects of HRT in healthy post-menopausal women in the USA, was prematurely stopped because a pre-defined threshold of harm was reached. In the UK, the WISDOM trial, which was similarly designed to assess the balance of risks and benefits of long term HRT, was subsequently stopped as it was considered unlikely to provide substantial evidence to influence clinical practice in the next ten years.

  When the findings of the WHI trial were published, they were immediately considered by the CSM. Preliminary urgent advice was issued to all UK health professionals later that same day, together with a fact-sheet to help advise women who may have been concerned about the implications of these findings.

  The EWG on HRT has met three times since July 2002 to examine in detail these trial findings together with other recent data on the long-term risks associated with HRT and their implications for the safety of HRT in the UK. Their conclusion was that these data confirm what is already known about the small increase in risk of breast cancer and venous thromboembolism (VTE) and the lack of protection from coronary heart disease. Importantly, they also confirm protection against hip fracture and reduced incidence of colorectal cancer but provide new evidence for a small increase in the risk of stroke and ovarian cancer.

  In light of these data, the CSM advises that the benefits of taking HRT in the short-term outweigh the risks for the majority of women who use it. However, the risks of HRT increase with long-term use and so treatment should only continue as long as the benefit in alleviating symptoms continue to outweigh the possible risk. For women with osteoporosis, the risks and benefits of HRT should be considered alongside those of alternative treatment options and each patient's treatment should be reviewed at least yearly.

  The CSM advises that HRT continues to have a useful role in alleviating menopausal symptoms and helping prevent osteoporosis. However, in an effort to maximise the safe and judicious use of HRT, women are encouraged to make the decision to take HRT jointly with their doctor, taking into consideration her personal and family history, their general health, concomitant medication and personal preferences and, importantly, to review the need for continuing therapy at least annually.

  The new advice has recently been published in the MHRA's safety bulletin, "Current Problems in Pharmacovigilance", which is distributed to all GPs, pharmacists, dentists and coroners in the UK. This information, together with an article specifically for women, has been posted on the MHRA/CSM website (www.mhra.gov.uk).

  These important messages have also been included in the British National Formulary (BNF) and are being added to the information for prescribers and the patient information leaflet that should be included with each pack of HRT.

Health

Margaret Jamieson (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab): To ask the Scottish Executive how many new products approved by the Medicines Control Agency and the National Institute for Clinical Excellence have not been approved by the Scottish Medicines Consortium since its establishment.

Malcolm Chisholm: The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) (the former Medicines Control Agency) licenses products on the basis of safety, quality and efficacy. The Agency does not take into account comparative efficacy or cost benefit.

  The Scottish Medicines Consortium (SMC) reviews newly licensed products using the evidence available at the time of marketing to establish the benefits and costs for NHSScotland. This enables the NHS to plan the speedy introduction of beneficial treatments where appropriate.

  Once sufficient evidence is available, the SMC initial advice might be the subject of a further assessment by NHS Quality Improvement Scotland or by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE), which produces guidance for the NHS in England and Wales.

  Information about products not recommended by the SMC for use within NHSScotland can be found on their website www.htbs.co.uk/smc.

  A full list of all the products appraised by NICE can be found on their website www.nice.org.uk.

Justice

Michael Matheson (Central Scotland) (SNP): To ask the Scottish Executive, further to the answer to question S2W-972 by Cathy Jamieson on 5 June 2003, how many nominations the First Minister makes to the Prime Minister to fill the vacant office of (a) Lord President of the Court of Session and (b) Lord Justice Clerk.

Hugh Henry: There is no statutory requirement but it is normal practice for the First Minister to offer the Prime Minister a choice of names to fill vacancies for the office of Lord President and Lord Justice Clerk. When appointments were being considered in 2001 the Prime Minister accepted the First Minister's recommended choice of name for each post.

Marine Environment

Mike Pringle (Edinburgh South) (LD): To ask the Scottish Executive what representations it has received about the designation of the Darwin Mounds as a special area of conservation under the EU habitats and birds directives.

Allan Wilson: The Scottish Executive has received a number of representations from fisheries interests and Non Governmental Organisations regarding the potential designation of the Darwin Mounds.

  Since the Darwin Mounds are located in UK waters beyond twelve nautical miles, the potential designation of the site is a reserved matter.

Rural Development

George Lyon (Argyll and Bute) (LD): To ask the Scottish Executive when responses to Proposals for Changes to Agri-Environment Schemes in Scotland will be published; what proportion of the responses were against transferring support for the Environmentally Sensitive Area Scheme (ESAS) to the Rural Stewardship Scheme (RSS), and what the disadvantages are of ending ESAS support and transferring such support to the RSS.

Ross Finnie: In accordance with the Executives' normal practice, copies of the responses to the consultation paper Proposals for Changes to Agri-Environment Schemes in Scotland are available on request, except when the respondent has asked for their response to remain confidential.

  Fifty point six percent of respondents to the consultation paper were against transferring support for the Environmentally Sensitive Area Scheme (ESAs) to the Rural Stewardship Scheme (RSS). These responses were received before I announced on 2 July that I had approved 99% of this years' applications to the RSS.

  I am currently considering arrangements for continued agri-environment support for people leaving ESA scheme agreements. I intend to make an announcement shortly.

Rural Development

Sarah Boyack (Edinburgh Central) (Lab): To ask the Scottish Executive whether it consulted on all amendments to the Scottish Rural Development Plan made in (a) 2001, (b) 2002 and (c) 2003 to date.

Ross Finnie: All past amendments to the Scottish Rural Development Plan (SDRP) have been the subject of consultation. We have already consulted on proposed improvements to support for environmentally-friendly and organic farming for intended inclusion in this year's SRDP amendment.

Rural Development

Sarah Boyack (Edinburgh Central) (Lab): To ask the Scottish Executive what plans it has to consult on any amendments to the Scottish Rural Development Plan following its mid-term evaluation.

Ross Finnie: It is our normal practice to consult about proposed changes to the Scottish Rural Development Plan. Accordingly if the mid-term evaluation exercise identifies the need for change then any proposals to amend the plan will be subject to consultation.

Rural Development

Sarah Boyack (Edinburgh Central) (Lab): To ask the Scottish Executive what proportion of rural development spending was on (a) continuing and (b) pilot agri-environment schemes in (i) 2001-02 and (ii) 2002-03 and how this spending compares with the proportion of equivalent spending on such schemes in (1) England and (2) Wales.

Ross Finnie: Scottish expenditure on agri-environment schemes over the past two years has been:

  

 2001-02
 2002-03


 £21.5 million
 £27.5 million



  Total expenditure on schemes contained within the Scottish Rural Development Plan over the same period was:

  

 2001-02
 2002-03


 £85.0 million
 £112.1 million



  Agri-environment schemes in Scotland therefore accounted for around 25% of total expenditure in both 2001-02 and 2002-03. Information relating to England is a matter for DEFRA (www.defra.gov.uk) and to Wales for NAWAD (www.assembly.wales.gov.uk).

  To date there has been no expenditure on pilot agri-environment schemes in Scotland and I understand that it is the same in England and Wales.

Rural Development

Sarah Boyack (Edinburgh Central) (Lab): To ask the Scottish Executive what percentage of responses to Proposals for Changes to Agri-Environment Schemes in Scotland supported the continuation of the Environmentally Sensitive Area Scheme rather than transferring such schemes to the Rural Stewardship Scheme.

Ross Finnie: Fifty point six percent of respondents to the consultation paper, Proposals for changes to Agri-environment Schemes in Scotland supported the continuation of the Environmentally Sensitive Area Scheme, rather than transferring to the Rural Stewardship Scheme (RSS) in its current form. These responses were received before I announced on 2 July that I had approved 99% of this year's applications to the RSS.

  I am currently considering arrangements for continued agri-environment support for people leaving ESA scheme agreements, and the responses to the other proposals in the consultation paper. I intend to make an announcement shortly.

Scottish Agricultural College

Brian Adam (Aberdeen North) (SNP): To ask the Scottish Executive whether it has any plans to review the accountability of the Scottish Agricultural College.

Ross Finnie: The Scottish Executive does not have any plans to review the accountability of the college.

Scottish Executive Funding

Margaret Jamieson (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab): To ask the Scottish Executive how much core funding was allocated to each body sponsored by its Environment and Rural Affairs Department in (a) 2000-01, (b) 2001-02 and (c) 2002-03 and how much will be allocated to each such body in (i) 2003-04, (ii) 2004-05 and (iii) 2005-06.

Ross Finnie: The table shows the cash grant or grant in aid allocations made by the department to its non-departmental public bodies or other sponsored bodies for the period requested. Figures for the years 2000-01 to 2002-03 are the final budget allocations for these years. Figures for 2003-04 are the annual budget allocations approved by the Parliament and are subject to amendment by Autumn or Spring revised budgets. Figures for 2004-05 and 2005-06 are provisional plans.

  

  
 £ 
  million


 2000-01
 2001-02
 2002-03
 2003-04
 2004-05
 2005-06


 Scottish Natural Heritage
 40.7
 50.0
 48.8
 56.2
 58.1
 58.5


 Scottish Environment Protection Agency
 17.3
 22.6
 23.2
 26.7
 26.3
 28.2


 National Parks*
 -
 3.0
 4.8
 6.7
 7.2
 7.8


 Scottish Agricultural and Biological Research 
  Institutes
 29.6
 35.3
 35.1
 35.0
 36.9
 38.6


 Scottish Agricultural College
 19.6
 21.3
 20.5
 20.5
 19.9
 20.0


 Royal Botanic Garden, Edinburgh
 5.5
 6.0
 6.2
 6.4
 6.3
 6.5


 Crofters Commission
 2.2
 2.3
 2.6
 2.4
 2.5
 2.8


 Deer Commission
 1.0
 1.0
 1.2
 1.2
 1.1
 1.1



  Note:

  *Loch Lomond and Trossachs National Park and Cairngorms National Park

Scottish Natural Heritage

Fergus Ewing (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP): To ask the Scottish Executive whether it will make public the minutes of its cabinet meetings during the first session of the Parliament and all background papers relating to the decision to relocate the headquarters of Scottish Natural Heritage from Edinburgh to Inverness; what the reasons are for its position on this matter; what powers it has, where there are matters of public interest, to publish documents that would normally be kept confidential, and under what circumstances it would use any such powers.

Allan Wilson: The Executive is committed to the release of factual information that informs ministerial decisions. Accordingly, the Executive's refinement and analysis of the discounted costs of the various relocation options identified in the DTZ Pieda study was placed in the Parliament's Reference Centre on 20 March (Bib number 27058).

  All decisions on whether to publish documents are taken in line with the provisions of the Code of Practice on Access to Scottish Executive Information. The general approach under the code is that information will be released except in cases where disclosure would not be in the public interest. The proceedings of the Scottish cabinet are exempt from disclosure under Part 2 of the Code. This is in line with the longstanding principle that it is not in the public interest to disclose private deliberations of government as disclosure would harm the frankness and candour of internal discussion.

Scottish Water

Des McNulty (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab): To ask the Scottish Executive what major capital projects will be completed by Scottish Water in each of the next two years.

Ross Finnie: I have asked Dr Jon Hargreaves, Chief Executive of Scottish Water to reply. His response is as follows:

  Between April 2003 and March 2005 approximately 700 projects (including major projects) will be completed, with additional smaller projects also being delivered. Scottish Water defines a major project as having a value of more than £3 million and the schemes above this value which are forecasted to be complete in 2003-04 and 2005-06 are listed in the table.

  

 Project Name
 Year
 Description 
  of Investment


 Water - Supply and Treatment
 
 


 Aultbea WTW
 2003-04
 To 
  achieve compliance with lead and trihalomethanes (THMs) 
  standards and Cryptosporidium Direction 2000


 Dundee (Clatto) WTW Ph 1&2
 2003-04
 To 
  meet Cryptosporidium Direction 2000 and Drinking Water Directive 
  - Lead


 Glengap and Penwhirn WTWs Upgrading
 2003-04
 To 
  comply with lead and trihalomethanes (THMs) standards and 
  Cryptosporidium Direction 2000


 Golspie-Brora (Backies) Water 
  Treatment Works
 2003-04
 To 
  achieve compliance with trihalomethanes (THMs) standards.


 Helensburgh Water Supply Upgrading
 2003-04
 To 
  achieve compliance with the Drinking Water Directive - Lead


 Perth (Gowans Terrace) Water 
  Treatment Works
 2003-04
 Compliance 
  with Cryptosporidium Direction 2000


 Taynuilt Water Supply Upgrading
 2003-04
 New 
  membrane plant to meet Drinking Water Directive - Lead


 Turriff Water Treatment Works
 2003-04
 To 
  achieve compliance with lead and trihalomethanes (THMs) 
  standards and Cryptosporidium Direction 2000


 Dingwall (Assynt) Water Supply
 2004-05
 To 
  achieve compliance with lead and trihalomethanes (THMs) 
  standards and Cryptosporidium Direction 2000


 Invercannie Membrane
 2004-05
 To 
  achieve compliance with lead standards and Cryptosporidium 
  Direction 2000


 Afton WTW - Refurbishment and 
  Process Improvements
 2004-05
 To 
  achieve compliance with lead and trihalomethanes (THMs) 
  standards.


 Water - Distribution
 
 


 Dundee - Duplication of Lintrathen 
  to Clatto Trunk Main
 2003-04
 Laying 
  an additional trunk water main to secure the supply to a 
  large area in Tayside


 East Kilbride - North
 2003-04
 Rehabilitation 
  work on Grade 4 and 5 mains to maintain service


 Penicuik- N.Borders Water Supply
 2003-04
 Improvements 
  to increase security and quality of supply


 Sewage - Wastewater Treatment
 
 


 Balmedie WWTP
 2003-04
 To 
  provide treatment capacity to meet the Urban Wastewater 
  Treatment Directive Coastal and Bathing Water Directive


 Bonnybridge WWTP Phase 2
 2003-04
 Improvement 
  of treatment process to meet Urban Wastewater Treatment 
  Directive - Inland Waters Sewage Treatment Directive


 Lochcarron WWTP
 2003-04
 To 
  provide a new Waste Water Treatment works and collection 
  system to meet the Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive 
  Coastal


 Longniddry, Aberlady & 
  Gullane Waste Water Treatment improvement scheme
 2003-04
 Improvement 
  of Treatment process to meet Urban Wastewater Treatment 
  Directive Coastal


 Newton Stewart STW
 2003-04
 Improvement 
  of Treatment process to meet Urban Wastewater Treatment 
  Directive Coastal


 Wick WWTP
 2003-04
 To 
  meet the Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive Coastal


 Cockburnspath WWTP & Berwickshire 
  Outfalls
 2003-04
 To 
  provide treatment capacity to meet the Urban Wastewater 
  Treatment Directive Coastal and Bathing Water Directive


 Kames and Tighnabruaich ST 
  Facilities
 2003-04
 Provides 
  2 new Waste Water Treatment Works to meet Urban Wastewater 
  Treatment Directive Coastal


 Brodick ST Facilities
 2004-05
 Improvement 
  of Treatment process to meet Urban Wastewater Treatment 
  Directive Coastal


 Cove and Kilcreggan ST Facilities
 2004-05
 Improvement 
  of Treatment process to meet Urban Wastewater Treatment 
  Directive Coastal


 Lamlash ST Facilities
 2004-05
 Provides 
  new Waste Water Treatment Works to meet Urban Wastewater 
  Treatment Directive Coastal


 Linwood & Johnston WWTP 
  Rationalisation
 2004-05
 Transfer 
  of sewerage from Linwood and Johnston WWTP's to Erskine 
  WWTP for treatment - meets Control of Pollution Act 1974


 Millport ST Facilities
 2004-05
 New 
  Waste Water Treatment Works to comply with the Bathing Waters 
  Directive - Sewage


 Tarbert ST Facilities
 2004-05
 Provides 
  new Waste Water Treatment Works to meet Urban Wastewater 
  Treatment Directive Coastal


 Tayport WWTP
 2004-05
 Provision 
  of treatment facilities to meet Urban Wastewater Treatment 
  Directive Coastal


 Tobermory ST Facilities
 2004-05
 Provision 
  of treatment facilities to meet Urban Wastewater Treatment 
  Directive Coastal


 Ullapool WWTP &CSOs
 2004-05
 First 
  Time Provision to meet Bathing Waters Treatment Directive 
  CSO's and Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive Coastal 
  CSO's


 Whiting Bay ST Facilities
 2004-05
 Provision 
  of Treatment Facilities to meet Urban Wastewater Treatment 
  Directive Coastal


 Sewage - Collection
 
 


 Esk Valley Burghs - Cso Regulation
 2003-04
 Remove 
  8 CSO's to meet the Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive 
  - Inland Waters CSO's


 Dunfermline Trunk Sewer Duplication
 2004-05
 Replacement 
  of Victorian Sewer to comply with Control of Pollution Act 
  1974



  Note:

  WTW - Water Treatment Works, WWTP - Wastewater Treatment Plant, CSOs - Combined Sewer overflows

Water Charges

Richard Lochhead (North East Scotland) (SNP): To ask the Scottish Executive how many (a) small, (b) medium-sized and (c) large businesses' water bills have (i) increased, (ii) remained static and (iii) decreased in each of the last three years.

Ross Finnie: This is an operational matter for Scottish Water. I have asked Dr Jon Hargreaves the Chief Executive of Scottish Water to respond. His response is as follows:-

  For the last two years, the way in which changes in charges have affected business customers are shown in the table. Figures for the change between 2000-01 to 2001-02 cannot be provided because of the introduction of a new billing system by one of the former water authorities.

  

 Business Size
 
 2001-02 
  to 2002-03
 2002-03 
  to 2003-04 2


 Small where
 Increased
 41095
 57429


 Charge <=£600
 Remained Static 1
 15649
 2581


 
 Decreased
 22845
 12478


 Medium Sized
 Increased
 42440
 59848


 Where charge
 Remained Static 1
 13289
 4471


 >£600 but < £100,000
 Decreased
 15948
 14687


 Large Businesses
 Increased
 120
 140


 Where charges
 Remained Static 1
 15
 13


 >£100,000
 Decreased
 45
 42


 Total
 
 151446
 151689



  Note:

  1 Includes all bills that changed by less than 3%.

  2 Assumes meter size and volumes consumed in 2003-04 will be the same as for 2002-03.